Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-20-2019 3:03 PM
24 online now:
Aussie, AZPaul3, dwise1, edge, ooh-child, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (7 members, 17 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Happy Birthday: Percy
Post Volume:
Total: 851,644 Year: 6,681/19,786 Month: 1,222/1,581 Week: 44/393 Day: 27/17 Hour: 0/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2930
31
3233
...
71NextFF
Author Topic:   Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 509 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


(3)
Message 451 of 1053 (752155)
03-09-2015 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 450 by RAZD
03-09-2015 9:56 AM


Re: silt floats? then there are layers above and below the iridium ...
RAZD writes:

possible experiment: take marbles to a pool and time how long it takes for them to reach the bottom.

The whole 'what settles at what rate' is to me, the cleanest and clearest of the geological evidence against a world-wide flood (as insisted by the fundamentalists). It's so easy to understand and demonstrate it just baffles my mind how someone can claim it's fuzzy in the least.

Thanks
JB


This message is a reply to:
 Message 450 by RAZD, posted 03-09-2015 9:56 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 452 by Faith, posted 03-09-2015 11:02 AM ThinAirDesigns has not yet responded
 Message 456 by petrophysics1, posted 03-09-2015 11:59 AM ThinAirDesigns has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 31250
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 452 of 1053 (752158)
03-09-2015 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 451 by ThinAirDesigns
03-09-2015 10:28 AM


Re: silt floats? then there are layers above and below the iridium ...
See, the problem is that when you get me to move off the thread you then continue the same discussion without allowing me to answer you. Is that fair? But I did answer you, and RAZD, at the new thread, HERE. And you have no call to consider your thoughts on the subject scientific and mine merely "speculative." You're guessing about the Flood yourself, because of course there is no way to ever prove any of it. I consider your guesses to be inept as antiFloodists' speculations always are because you won't take the time to think out how the Flood could reasonably explain something, it's always a kneejerk attempt to discredit the Flood -- bias, not thought.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 451 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-09-2015 10:28 AM ThinAirDesigns has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 471 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-09-2015 11:00 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 509 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


Message 453 of 1053 (752161)
03-09-2015 11:15 AM


Faith, I did not response to you or refer to you in that post. RAZD suggested a well thought out science experiment and I responded as to it's value. Full stop.

Please be respectful of the thread topic and discuss verifiable science.

Thanks
JB


Replies to this message:
 Message 454 by Faith, posted 03-09-2015 11:46 AM ThinAirDesigns has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 31250
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 454 of 1053 (752166)
03-09-2015 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 453 by ThinAirDesigns
03-09-2015 11:15 AM


RAZD was responding to ME, TAD, not to you, and you CANNOT claim that your wild speculations about the Flood are any more "verifiable science" than mine. Just get off the discussion and go back to bashing creationists that I've never heard of. If a post impinges on my views, I'm answering, you have no right to decide who can comment on what.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 453 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-09-2015 11:15 AM ThinAirDesigns has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 455 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-09-2015 11:56 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 509 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


Message 455 of 1053 (752172)
03-09-2015 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 454 by Faith
03-09-2015 11:46 AM


Faith writes:

RAZD was responding to ME, TAD, not to you,

Faith, notice that the RAZD post that I quoted from includes a note to me (#450):

quote:
ThinAirDesigns: possible experiment: take marbles to a pool and time how long it takes for them to reach the bottom.

See how that portion was direct SPECIFICALLY at me and not at you. I only responded to what RAZD directed at me. I had no comment whatsoever on this conversation with you.

Before you insist that I was continuing a discussion you are involved in, please read what is written. I will not be having ANY exchanges with you other than to ask you to respect the thread topic. Nothing more.

JB


This message is a reply to:
 Message 454 by Faith, posted 03-09-2015 11:46 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
petrophysics1
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 456 of 1053 (752173)
03-09-2015 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 451 by ThinAirDesigns
03-09-2015 10:28 AM


Re: silt floats? then there are layers above and below the iridium ...
TAD,

Get yourself some steel ball bearings in the same size as the marbles, also if you know someone who black powder shoots they may have lead balls in .5" (about 54 cal, 50 cal is .45" as a patch is put on the ball).

You can see the difference in the drop rate by S.G. in an aquarium, you don't even have to time it.

Now you've shown that things are sorted by size and specific gravity in water.

The number of places in the world where you can see that in a strat column or measured section that the rocks violate this basic sorting are probably countless. In fact I can't think of a sedimentary basin where I haven't seen this.

Therefore they could not have been deposited by a flood.

Edited by petrophysics1, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 451 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-09-2015 10:28 AM ThinAirDesigns has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 457 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-09-2015 12:07 PM petrophysics1 has responded

  
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 509 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


Message 457 of 1053 (752175)
03-09-2015 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 456 by petrophysics1
03-09-2015 11:59 AM


Re: silt floats? then there are layers above and below the iridium ...
petrophysics1 writes:

Now you've shown that things are sorted by size and specific gravity in water.

Excellent idea. Different sizes of same materials as well as and same sizes of different materials.

I wonder if anyone has ever worked out any formula for this and was able to predicted the results?

Thanks
JB


This message is a reply to:
 Message 456 by petrophysics1, posted 03-09-2015 11:59 AM petrophysics1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 458 by petrophysics1, posted 03-09-2015 12:23 PM ThinAirDesigns has not yet responded
 Message 459 by kbertsche, posted 03-09-2015 12:34 PM ThinAirDesigns has not yet responded
 Message 473 by RAZD, posted 03-10-2015 12:04 AM ThinAirDesigns has not yet responded

  
petrophysics1
Inactive Member


Message 458 of 1053 (752180)
03-09-2015 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 457 by ThinAirDesigns
03-09-2015 12:07 PM


S.G. and size
Tad,

I saw this clearly shown in a video I have about placer gold mining. The difference between quartz sg about 2.65 and gold about 19 was amazing . The gold looked like it was dropping in air, while the quartz looked like it was floating down.

F=ma, but that force is a vector sum. If we ignore friction that leaves two forces. Gravity and the force of buoyancy in opposite directions. The force of buoyancy depends on area and specific gravity.

You know wood floats, so why aren't all the coal deposits right near the surface. That's what a flood would do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 457 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-09-2015 12:07 PM ThinAirDesigns has not yet responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 267 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 459 of 1053 (752185)
03-09-2015 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 457 by ThinAirDesigns
03-09-2015 12:07 PM


Re: silt floats? then there are layers above and below the iridium ...
Excellent idea. Different sizes of same materials as well as and same sizes of different materials.

I wonder if anyone has ever worked out any formula for this and was able to predicted the results?

Thanks
JB


You'll want a formula for the terminal velocity of a particle in a fluid. The equations for fluid dynamics are nonlinear; normal practice is to use a linear approximation based on the "Reynolds number" appropriate to the problem. There are some good explanations of this on Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_velocity, http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes%27_law), but it would probably be easier to work from a chart or plot of terminal velocity vs particle size and density.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 457 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-09-2015 12:07 PM ThinAirDesigns has not yet responded

    
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 509 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


Message 460 of 1053 (752189)
03-09-2015 12:45 PM


ThinAirDesigns writes:

I wonder if anyone has ever worked out any formula for this and was able to predicted the results?

I should have been more clear than just the big grin that I had moved to humor. I have a long background in engineering with a fair bit of aero thrown in so I'm reasonably familiar with the formula, Reynolds numbers, etc. Sorry to throw everyone off track, but it's just another demonstration of how folk on this thread are super willing to help and educate.

Appreciated.
JB


  
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 509 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


Message 461 of 1053 (752219)
03-09-2015 2:11 PM


Just before the thread post rate went through the roof, I asked a question in Message 222 that may have simply been lost in the crowd. It also may be just that biology isn't well represent among the participants, but I'll ask it one more time. If there's not local answer, I'll find a forum where I can get it answered and report back.

Thanks
JB

quote:
I'm familiar enough with plants to know that they uptake C02. I also know that decaying plant material produces C02. I'm trying to roughly figure something out in my mind and I'm hoping there is a reasonably simple answer - I just can't find the right Google search term that will pull up an answer.
(Note: though the core purpose for my question circles around C14 dating, when I refer to C02 in this question, I'm not referring specifically to C14)

Core question: In a general world wide sense, are plants
A: a net user of C02?
B: a net producer of C02?
C: just a reservoir?

I hear in the climate discussion that the deforestation of the world is at least partially to blame for rising C02 levels in the atmosphere. This would make sense to me knowing what I do know about biology, however as someone who has only observed the arguments on the climate side from afar I can see that there is a lot of weird religion going on over there as well so I'm hesitant to just trust what I hear.

I'm reading all this crap from Morris, etc. regarding how the vegetative state of the world pre-flood (and just after that it) would have been so different that the C02 ratios would have been all screwed up. Now, frankly they can't seem to make up their minds what exactly the starting point is, for instance: Do they think the flood cause great burial of vegetation causing sequestering of C02 that would have normally been produced by decay (C02 goes down?), or do they think that the flood deposited much decaying vegetation on the surface (C02 goes up?). Either way, they always seem to imply that the results always go in their YEC favor carbon dating wise. All I actually see is the FUD principle in play frankly. Now know that I recognize the validity of the calibration charts which answer these charges definitively, but in my current crowd I need to be able to understand and explain the implications of these charges without just pointing to the calibration charts.

At any rate, I'm not looking for any answer to the above paragraph (I don't think there is one), I'm just looking for a biologically sound answer to my core question -- with that answer I can prepare myself to address the YEC claims as they arise. Perhaps there is not simple answer - I'm aware that's one possibility.

Thanks
JB



Replies to this message:
 Message 462 by kbertsche, posted 03-09-2015 2:52 PM ThinAirDesigns has responded
 Message 463 by Tangle, posted 03-09-2015 2:57 PM ThinAirDesigns has responded
 Message 466 by RAZD, posted 03-09-2015 3:22 PM ThinAirDesigns has responded
 Message 470 by herebedragons, posted 03-09-2015 10:52 PM ThinAirDesigns has not yet responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 267 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 462 of 1053 (752226)
03-09-2015 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 461 by ThinAirDesigns
03-09-2015 2:11 PM


I'm familiar enough with plants to know that they uptake C02. I also know that decaying plant material produces C02. I'm trying to roughly figure something out in my mind and I'm hoping there is a reasonably simple answer - I just can't find the right Google search term that will pull up an answer.
(Note: though the core purpose for my question circles around C14 dating, when I refer to C02 in this question, I'm not referring specifically to C14)
Core question: In a general world wide sense, are plants
A: a net user of C02?
B: a net producer of C02?
C: just a reservoir?

I hear in the climate discussion that the deforestation of the world is at least partially to blame for rising C02 levels in the atmosphere. This would make sense to me knowing what I do know about biology, however as someone who has only observed the arguments on the climate side from afar I can see that there is a lot of weird religion going on over there as well so I'm hesitant to just trust what I hear.


I would view plants as a reservoir. Their growth pulls CO2 out of the atmosphere. Their decay puts most of it back into the atmosphere, but also sequesters a small amount in the soil.

For solid information on the carbon cycle, I'd suggest publications of the carbon cycle lab at UCI.

I'm reading all this crap from Morris, etc. regarding how the vegetative state of the world pre-flood (and just after that it) would have been so different that the C02 ratios would have been all screwed up. Now, frankly they can't seem to make up their minds what exactly the starting point is, for instance: Do they think the flood cause great burial of vegetation causing sequestering of C02 that would have normally been produced by decay (C02 goes down?), or do they think that the flood deposited much decaying vegetation on the surface (C02 goes up?). Either way, they always seem to imply that the results always go in their YEC favor carbon dating wise. All I actually see is the FUD principle in play frankly. Now know that I recognize the validity of the calibration charts which answer these charges definitively, but in my current crowd I need to be able to understand and explain the implications of these charges without just pointing to the calibration charts.

At any rate, I'm not looking for any answer to the above paragraph (I don't think there is one), I'm just looking for a biologically sound answer to my core question -- with that answer I can prepare myself to address the YEC claims as they arise. Perhaps there is not simple answer - I'm aware that's one possibility.


As you say, various conflicting YEC claims have been made regarding what a global flood would do to radiocarbon levels. You may just have to find out which particular story your audience accepts and address those specific claims. We know from the calibration curves that there were no abrupt changes in the atmospheric radiocarbon concentrations in the past 45,000 years.

I think Gerald Aardsma may have written something on the supposed effect of a global flood on radiocarbon. So far as I know, he is the only YEC who was ever trained at a leading radiocarbon lab and who really understands radiocarbon. Because of this, he trusts radiocarbon, and this has led him to some idiosyncratic YEC positions.

Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 461 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-09-2015 2:11 PM ThinAirDesigns has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 464 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-09-2015 3:04 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6772
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 463 of 1053 (752228)
03-09-2015 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 461 by ThinAirDesigns
03-09-2015 2:11 PM


TAD writes:

Core question: In a general world wide sense, are plants
A: a net user of C02?
B: a net producer of C02?
C: just a reservoir?

It's a complex question, generally plants and trees (and blue-gree algae) have been regarded as a net consumer of CO2. But as the climate warms, that reverses. Apparently 2003 was the first year when they produced more than they absorbed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7620921.stm

But it's also a question of timescales. Plants are Carbon batteries, they fix CO2 from the atmosphere through photosynthesis converting it to sugars used to build cells. The Carbon is released one way or another on their death - often anorobicly producing methane, through rotting or animal digestion.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 461 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-09-2015 2:11 PM ThinAirDesigns has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 465 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-09-2015 3:06 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 509 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


Message 464 of 1053 (752231)
03-09-2015 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 462 by kbertsche
03-09-2015 2:52 PM


kbertsche writes:

I would view plants as a reservoir. Their growth pulls CO2 out of the atmosphere. Their decay puts most of it back into the atmosphere, but also sequesters a small amount in the soil.

Thanks. That makes a ton of sense.

The reason I wanted that understanding is so I can create a hypothetical calibration curve, one that would show what the curve *would* look like if what Morris was saying was true. There would be serious departures in the steady line shown in the actual curve if it were true.

It's interesting to read where may YEC sites now say radiocarbon dating is no good past about 4000BC. This allows them to fit it in to the biblical artifacts where they want to use it, but claim it's unreliable otherwise.

JB


This message is a reply to:
 Message 462 by kbertsche, posted 03-09-2015 2:52 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 468 by Coyote, posted 03-09-2015 8:27 PM ThinAirDesigns has responded

  
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 509 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


Message 465 of 1053 (752232)
03-09-2015 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 463 by Tangle
03-09-2015 2:57 PM


Tangle writes:

It's a complex question, generally plants and trees (and blue-gree algae) have been regarded as a net consumer of CO2. But as the climate warms, that reverses. Apparently 2003 was the first year when they produced more than they absorbed.

That's very interesting how that would change. The 'battery' part is rather easy to understand though.

Thanks
JB


This message is a reply to:
 Message 463 by Tangle, posted 03-09-2015 2:57 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
2930
31
3233
...
71NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019